taiwan missile defense and mainland missile

Geographer said:

I completely agree with this. The probability of a successful amphibious invasion against Taiwan is very low, even without American support. That leaves two options to coerce Taipei's surrender: laying siege to the island or nuclear weapons. Laying siege to Taiwan would be a long, drawn-out nightmare for both Taiwanese civilians and PRC diplomats who would have to rising world anger at the situation. If the Taipei government is determined to hold out, then it would get very ugly for civilians. Plus, the longer it goes on, the likely the U.S. will intervene. American military intervention = Beijing loses, end of discussion. All PRC war-planning must take steps to prevent American military intervention in the conflict.

Nobody is talking about Chinese using nuclear weapons against the United States. I'm talking about China looking nuclear weapons against Taiwan to quickly end the war. Just as the atomic bombs on Japan in 1945 were not the end of humanity, or even the end of those cities, Taiwan would quickly recover. Besides, using the weapons on cities may be unnecessary. Beijing could demonstrate on off the coast to shock the leadership into quick surrender. What leader would notsurrender in the face of attack? What leader would accept the legacy of the deaths of tens of thousands of his constituents in order to forestall defeat by a couple days or weeks? Certainly no KMT to DPP leader. They would surrender, PLA troops would land on Taiwanese shores without incident, and the war would be over before it began.

Click to expand...

If you're predicting the use of nukes in an all-out war with Japan, then that's highly probable. But on its own brothers and sisters? That's like saying United States throwing a nuclear grenade on Canada over territorial dispute over a small arctic glacier.

As bad as media had made everything sound crazy, people in the mainland still see the people on the opposite side of the strait as their own, it is also true to a lesser extent to the people in Taiwan.

No one in the right state of mind would drop nukes on territories they see as their own, especially that habituated by brothers of same blood.

If you're predicting the use of nukes in an all-out war with Japan, then that's highly probable. But on its own brothers and sisters? That's like saying United States throwing a nuclear grenade on Canada over territorial dispute over a small arctic glacier.

As bad as media had made everything sound crazy, people in the mainland still see the people on the opposite side of the strait as their own, it is also true to a lesser extent to the people in Taiwan.

No one in the right state of mind would drop nukes on territories they see as their own, especially that habituated by brothers of same blood.

Click to expand...

How many Chinese "brothers" died during the Chinese civil war? How many Chinese "brothers" died during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution? All those dead Chinese sure wish you could have been advising Mao Zedong and company when they let slip the dogs of war.

More importantly, what's the alternative? The PRC simply has no strategy to retake Taiwan that doesn't have a high likelihood of failure, mass casualties on both sides, or both. Nuclear weapons are the only way to 1) end the war quickly, 2) ensure PRC victory, 3) save lives compared to alternative war scenarios. A nuclear demonstration would cost zero lives and possibly end the war before it began. A nuclear strike on a medium sized city with a low yield warhead would kill tens of thousands of people, almost certainly less than would die in a PRC invasion. Iraq saw around 1 million excess deaths (including violent deaths and the resulting higher mortality rate from destroyed infrastructure and chaos) from 2003-2010. A conventional war in Taiwan would cause far more, if the PLA were fortunate enough to get onshore.

Geographer said:

How many Chinese "brothers" died during the Chinese civil war? How many Chinese "brothers" died during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution? All those dead Chinese sure wish you could have been advising Mao Zedong and company when they let slip the dogs of war.

More importantly, what's the alternative? The PRC simply has no strategy to retake Taiwan that doesn't have a high likelihood of failure, mass casualties on both sides, or both. Nuclear weapons are the only way to 1) end the war quickly, 2) ensure PRC victory, 3) save lives compared to alternative war scenarios. A nuclear demonstration would cost zero lives and possibly end the war before it began. A nuclear strike on a medium sized city with a low yield warhead would kill tens of thousands of people, almost certainly less than would die in a PRC invasion. Iraq saw around 1 million excess deaths (including violent deaths and the resulting higher mortality rate from destroyed infrastructure and chaos) from 2003-2010. A conventional war in Taiwan would cause far more, if the PLA were fortunate enough to get onshore.

Click to expand...

I read all 4 pages, and I must say, you are a f-ing idiot.

1st of all, using nuke to end the war, will have more consequence beyond the Taiwan conflict, it will start a precedent for all nations on earth that nuclear weapon is once again, not taboo anymore in traditional military conflict, so bye bye India and Pakistan next time when some politician is in a bad mood, and bye bye 2 billion human population on earth that dies due to direct nuclear blast and the nuclear winter that follows, which will dramatically decrease food harvest for decades, and 1000s of years of radioactive fallout.

2nd of all, what make you think China will have high chance of failure invade Taiwan by traditional means? They will control the ocean, they will control the air space. That means, they will have NO PROBLEM concentrate ALL of their fire support to establish a simple beachhead, that means PLA can land millions of troops unopposed. How long do you think those troops with armor and air support will take to march into the cities?

3rd of all, what make you think US will get involved? I used to think they will, but after this Iraq invasion, I can bet you my left testicles that they will not intervene, besides using very strong words in UN. US invaded Iraq, a sovereignty nation, base on total lie and fabrication and guess what? NOTHING happened to them, almost everyone in the world opposed them and they still did it, and nothing happened, there is absolutely NO connection between US and Iraq, there is totally no justification for the invasion. Now, what connection China have with TW? Let me see, almost no one recognize official status of TW, almost every country recognize TW is part of China. One can even argue that the war between KMT and CCP is not yet over, both side are the same people. There is 10000000x more connection between China and TW, than US with Iraq. after US's Iraq f-up which receive no consequence whatsoever, do you really think the whole will somehow get all mad when China went to war with TW? Of course not, do you think US will declare war against China solo? China is NOT Iraq, they have the ability to fight back, one can even argue that they almost own the US economy, and since US is controlled by corporation, what are the chances they will want to loose everything and go to war with China? And lastly, there will never be a direct conflict between 2 superpower that have ICBM, which China and US all have, do you think US is going to risk the life of 150 million people to fight for an island on the other side of the earth, where 99% of the average American can't even find on the damn map without goggling it?

4th of all, are you afraid PLA is going to be scared because of causality? Well you should have know by now, China don't really care about human life all that much, they only care about objectives, and again, I highly doubt they will lose 1 million death (50k at MOST), but let's say that they do... SO WHAT??? China can afford to lose 10 million of it is people if it takes to unify the country. Life in CHEAP in China, and unfortunately that is a fact. If CCP uses nuke on TW, they will go down as one of the worst government in Chinese history.

You are out of you f-ing mind to even think about using nuke.

Geographer, if nukes were an option, chemical and biological weapons are also. Whatever of these choices are enacted, Taiwan doesn't fall intact and I doubt their willingness to cooperate. The US will have another and profit most by excellent Chinese scientists in the stimulating US environment.

Chinese missile numbers are not just countered by BMD, the BMD is one of several defensive layers and meant for taking down select attacks. Just like a warship, airfields can be defended by multiple means, including air defense guns, and most missiles will go harmlessly off target due to the very many cheap defensive layers of jamming and decoy. gives you some ideas about the mutual attempts and their outcome. In modern times, weapons and countermeasures are more sophisticated and the balance might be slightly shifted. Wartime performance of complex weapons still shows to be far below peacetime training expectations, especially for missiles.

Welcome to the forum jackliu! I'll respond to your points one-by-one.

I want to reiterate that my position throughout this thread and argument is not that China should nuke Taiwan, but that using nuclear weapons offers China the fastest and most likely to succeed method of winning a future war with the island.

First, you're assuming many countries want to use nuclear weapons against each other and it's only the taboo of them never having been used since World War II holding them back. Does that really make sense? Countries like India and Pakistan don't nuke each other or use conventional weapons against each other because they have too much to lose and almost nothing to gain by going to war. Their governments are not crazed nationalist dictators like in years past. The reason countries don't use nuclear weapons anymore is the same reason countries rarely go to war against other countries: too much to lose, nothing to gain.

Second, I really think China now and for the next 10 years would have a high chance of failure if it tried to take Taiwan through an amphibious assault using only conventional weapons. Amphibious assaults are really difficult. Has China ever simulated landing 30,000 troops in 24 hours against a heavily fortified beach head? I don't think so. And China would need to follow that up with at least 100,000 more soldiers not to mention tanks and artillery in order to break out of the beach head.

In warfare, you want to spread your forces out to surround the enemy, avoid a crippling blow from a lucky artillery barrage or airstrike, and deceive the enemy about your location. But an amphibious assault puts huge numbers of troops with limited air and artillery support in a tiny, predictable area. As soon as ROC forces get wind of the invasion they are going to throw everything they have at the beach head, easily outnumbering PRC troops for the first few days.

All this assumes PRC control of air and sea, which is likely but would take several days to weeks.

Most importantly, it assumes the United States stays out. If the United States enters the war, China loses. The United States doesn't like to lose, and there is so much anti-Chinese sentiment in America that they U.S political establishment would relish a fight with China. Therefore, if the United States gets in, it will get in for good and commit enough forces to win.

Every Chinese strategic and tactical decision must focus on keeping the United States out of the war. The only way to do this, in my opinion, is to keep the war short.

Third, while I think American entry into the war is not a certainty at all, a lot depends on the American political context. China-bashing is all the rage in Washington these years, and will continue as long as China runs such a large trade surplus with America. I think a lot of American politicians and generals secretly relish the chance to flex American military muscles and bloody China's nose. If the war is over in a couple weeks, I doubt America will get involved. But if the war drags on for months, as a conventional war would, then there's be a growing American domestic movement to intervene. Call it the "do something" effect of the media. The American media narrative would be something like this: Freedom-loving Taiwanese are getting bombarded/starved/massacred by evil Communists, why is America sitting on the sidelines? Do something!

Even if you don't agree with this narrative, you have to understand and appreciate that it would be believed by probably the majority of Americans should war break out. A wise person understands now only their position and viewpoints, but the positions and viewpoints of others. Or as a mafioso put it, "Keep your friends close but your enemies closer"...so you know what they're thinking.

Kurt, I agree with you that the Chinese military planners should not put too much stock in their ballistic missiles, or the abilities of their air force to soften up Taiwan. Ballistic missiles have never been useful for military purposes. For bombing to really take its tole on the enemy, there has to be either massive saturation bombing of cities and industrial zones, or hundreds to thousands of laser-guided missile strikes on a wide variety of targets: airfields, radar sites, power plants, barracks, ports, roads, bridges, just about any infrastructure. I'm sure the PLAAF dreams about being the IDF in 1967, just as Iraq did in 1980 against Iran, yet it's really hard to pull off those kind of surprise, totally successful attacks. Against a modern military power like Taiwan, I give the chance of an Israeli-style raid being successful at 10 percent.

I would put current Chinese air force bombing capabilities at a level lower than NATO in the 1999 Kosovo War. In that war, NATO air forces had complete air control over a tiny, middle income country and yet performed rather poorly. The PLAAF would be facing a much larger, much more advanced and high tech government in Taiwan. The PLAAF has NO combat experience with PGMs and has only started training with them in the last decade. Most videos showing off the SU-27 were of freakin' strafing runs with unguided rockets!! What a joke! PLAAF doctrine has come a long way since then, but not that long, and the use of PGMs is still new to the country. In 1999, by contrast, NATO air forces had a decade of experience after the 1991 Persian Gulf War to build on, and still they struggled.

1st, yes I do, and yes there is a indeed a taboo of using nuclear weapons on conventional conflicts, this is one reason why India and Pakistan didn't go all out in 1999 and 2003, this is why Israel is not considering nuking Syria and Iran, this is why US and Soviet Union didn’t nuke China before it had the bomb, and this is why there are only less than dozen nation on earth with nuclear ability, once you get the ball rolling, once China demonstrated that using nuke is acceptable to conventional war, guess what? Every Tom and Jerry dictatorship in the world will make it their priority to acquire nukes, once they do... you want to know what is going to happen to world geo politics? So no, China nuking TW will bring very very short sight benefit to China and 1000x more harm to the human race, and last time I check, Chinese people are human. And forget about China ever winning the diplomatic war after the nuking. If you think anti china sentiment is bad now, think about how the world is going to react after they drop that nuke. Oh and foregut about integrate Tw people into the system for the next 100 years, Using nuke on TW will be one of the stupidest decision made by China, or any human species in this situation.

2nd. What you think is irreverent, China right now have overwhelming advantage in TW strait, they can use 1/4 of their air force and navy to take control of TW ocean and air. And no, I am not count in surprise attack, when and if China invades, it will be no surprise to anyone, TW will know it, US will know it China will know for 3 month in advance, but it won't matter due to China's overwhelming advantage, you can at best land 30k rapid response troops in a surprise, but you can land half million people all out. And this is situation today, think about in 10 years, China's air force will outnumber TW 10-1 in modern jets, China's navy; submarine will outnumber TW 10-1. But yeah sure, when they prepare for war, and they will not expand that 30k troopers whatsoever, great logic, they will not convert other troops into amphibious and airborne unit, they will do the whole invasion just be that 30k alone for the next 10 years, while TW will mobilize the whole island of 20 million people and turn them into crack elite troops. Seriously dude, are you even listening to yourself? You sound like Americans, “we will do this, we will do that, and our enemy will stay exactly the same, and thereof we will win in the end...”

3rd of all. You are the one in the beginning that already made up your mind that US will intervene, and I just told you they will NOT. It is interesting that you totally skipped US's invades Iraq base on totally lie and fabrication, while the world watches and DID NOTHING, and guess how did that war turn out? not very well for US is it? US vs Iraq was like a 400lb body builder beating on a 12 year old boy who have cancer and sitting in a wheel chair. But once US got bogged down, that cancer boy give them a bloody nose didn’t they? And what do you think is going to happen to China, who can actually fight back? The reason US lost the Iraq war is not because of lack of force, they lost because they were too afraid of causality, for every solider die, the people back home complain like hell, and there was like what? 4000 us troop killed in the whole war for 10 years? Which actually manage to bankrupted that nation, and ring down the republican government, During Korean war, China loses more than 4k solder in a hour and Chinese public opinion didn’t give a crap, during the 1979 invasion of VN, in less than 1 month China lost 20k troopers and how did the Chinese people in China react? not much, when China sinks a US carrier battle group with more than 10k people on board, how will people back home in US react? How will US react when China sink 1,2,3 US carrier battle group? How will they feel that they are fighting for a small island where 99% of average America can't pronounce, can't find on the map, and have no direct interest, no direct threat to the security of united state, and fighting for a small island that 99% of all the nation on earth that recognizes as part of China? Where it will not be endorse by the United Nation? Where US have to go to war all by itself the other side of the globe, you really think TW worth all that much?

You think US public opinion will force US to war? You should know American people are sheeples, they have no independent ability to do critical thinking, ABC, CNN, CBS told the America sheeple there was imminent threat of Iraq MWD, they repeat it over and over and over and over and over again and again and again and again guess what? 99% of American believe in it, and thus supported the war, the war was not because US population’s public option that forced the nation into the war, it was the government ----- influence ----> Media ----- influence-----> people for war ------ supported -----> war. NOT the other way around. United State people are not free, time and time again, it has been proven that they are a product of the media, a media which heavily connected with the government and corporate interests.

And lastly, interestingly you didn't mention at all the economic interest that both nation are connected, ALL of united states civilian manufacturing ability have been outsourced to China, if US goes to war, please tell me you don’t believe the crap that “CHINESE IS EARNING ALL OF OUR MONEY!!!!!” Vast majority of profit are earn by US corporations that manufactures in China but earn all of their profit at home selling those products, they pay a peanut amount of wages to the Chinese side in the overall process. They are the ones have the most to lose. Bbye bye Wal-Mart, Kmart, Apple, Costo, Sams club, and want to take a guess who donates the most money to politician candidate for elections? hint hint, US corporation, which almost all of them benefits from China.

Oh and again, you assume that the war will be long, because base on your pervious personal assumption that for the next 10 years, China will do noting with only 30k troops while TW will train it is people to became elite force like Chuck Norris. Your pervious assumption is false and baseless personal opinion, thus, this assumption is also false and personal opinion.

Oh and make another analysis that most of the Chinese ballistic missile will be useless, that they will miss the targets, I mean, never mind that all of them are guided by GPS/Compass, with terrain guidance with accuracy of 10 meters or less on test, but in the war, they will all became as accurate as throwing rocks. Oh and let's also ignore all the thousands of cruise missiles with 2000km range which Chain is going to fire, all again with accuracy of 10m or less, and yes, they will all became as accurate as throwing rocks in event of war, and let's also ignore those 200km+ range rocket launchers, with impact radius more accurate less than 1%, and yes, in the event of the war, they will also be useless like rocks.

Oh and yes, let's use a late 1990s video of PLAAF using SU-27 dropping iron bombs and unguided rocket to conclude that this will be how 400+ flankers, J-10 will be used in the event of war. Let’s make a general conclusion of entire China’s air force base on the footage of a 20 year old su-27 on a publicize military excise.

Never mind China outnumber every single force factor with TW by 10-1, never mind China out technology almost all TW weapons, never mind that China already have this advantage today which will be even more wide spread in next 10 years.

Your analysis of United State is laughable, your underestimation of China military is amazing, your overhype of TW's force sound like words coming from a Filipino.

Also, just a quick point. If China did make the stupid decision to use nuclear weapons on Taiwan, surely, there would be significant risk to China also in terms of fallout? If the wind is blowing towards the Chinese coast, it could be devastating. It would also be devastating for the taiwan strait in terms of fish, economy, etc.

What about inciting them to a (failed Scottish attempt to build the Panama Canal centuries before the current one) to make Taiwan fall quickly? Just take a look at history, how difficult it was to subdue Scotland with military force and how easy economy could convince them to surrender.

I will first respond to jackliu's argument that Americans are idiots who do what they told by the government and media.

You think US public opinion will force US to war? You should know American people are sheeples, they have no independent ability to do critical thinking, ABC, CNN, CBS told the America sheeple there was imminent threat of Iraq MWD, they repeat it over and over and over and over and over again and again and again and again guess what? 99% of American believe in it, and thus supported the war, the war was not because US population’s public option that forced the nation into the war, it was the government ----- influence ----> Media ----- influence-----> people for war ------ supported -----> war. NOT the other way around. United State people are not free, time and time again, it has been proven that they are a product of the media, a media which heavily connected with the government and corporate interests.

Click to expand...

Even if this characterization of Americans were true, it more likely that the United States will intervene! Since the end of the Cold War, the American government has generally been more interventionist than the general public. President Bush I got involved in Somalia in 1992 overruling the deep skepticism of humanitarian missions in the Republican party, military establishment, and general public. When 18 soldiers died in the Battle of Mogadishu, the U.S. was ready to get out as fast as possible because it never really wanted to be there in the first place. President Clinton never had strong public support for the Bosnian and Kosovo Wars, or even support from the militaristic Republican Party, yet he pushed the wars ahead regardless. Opinion polls on the Iraq War and Afghanistan war since ~2006 show majorities want those wars to end as soon as possible, yet the U.S. government left/is leaving those wars very slowly. The U.s. defense and political establishment is more favorable to military adventures than the general public. Thus, if jackliu's argument that Americans are "sheeple" who do what their told by the government and media is true, that makes American intervention into a Taiwan conflict more likely!

Next, jackliu argues that even if the U.S. does intervene, as soon as China's military smacks the USN around the Americans will go home.

not much, when China sinks a US carrier battle group with more than 10k people on board, how will people back home in US react? How will US react when China sink 1,2,3 US carrier battle group? How will they feel that they are fighting for a small island where 99% of average America can't pronounce, can't find on the map, and have no direct interest, no direct threat to the security of united state, and fighting for a small island that 99% of all the nation on earth that recognizes as part of China? Where it will not be endorse by the United Nation? Where US have to go to war all by itself the other side of the globe, you really think TW worth all that much?

Click to expand...

Even the most optimistic Chinese generals would not dare risk a prediction of sinking up to three US CVBGs. All the analysis I've read is how much brain energy and weapons massing they are doing to attempt to take out just one. But let's assume there is a Chinese military miracle and they sink three CVBGs. What will the U.S. do?

If the war is still going on, the U.S. will find ways to "get back at" at the Chinese, make them feel some pain. Maybe the navy backs off, but the air force bombs whatever it can where ever it can. The USAF trained for decades to penetrate Soviet air defenses and there are ways into China as well. Maybe not directly over the Taiwan Strait, but from Korea into Manchuria an from India into southwestern China. What about Chinese merchant ships around the world? By the way, the United States would still have eight aircraft carriers to send against China.

If China launches a war against Taiwan, they should know with reasonable certainty that the U.S. will not get involved, or if the U.S. gets involved that China will win the war before the U.S. can rush more than one CVBG into the region.

What you think is irreverent, China right now have overwhelming advantage in TW strait, they can use 1/4 of their air force and navy to take control of TW ocean and air. And no, I am not count in surprise attack, when and if China invades, it will be no surprise to anyone, TW will know it, US will know it China will know for 3 month in advance, but it won't matter due to China's overwhelming advantage, you can at best land 30k rapid response troops in a surprise, but you can land half million people all out.

Click to expand...

Where are you getting these numbers? Can you explain how China would be able to land 30,000 troops so quickly and as a surprise? They only have three 071 LPDs which each carry 500-600 marines. China would needs dozens of ships ferrying troops back and forth for several days, like a reverse Battle of Dunkirk. And half a million in a few days or a week? China doesn't have the ships to do that, and even if they did they have never practiced such a large operation. Plus the ships and their landing troops would be vulnerable to all manner of Taiwanese defenses like naval mines, submarines, artillery, land mines, underwater obstacles, anti-ship missiles, and long-range artillery.

The last time an amphibious assault of the scale you're talking about--and the scale China would need to win--was in 1944 at Normandy. It took over a year to plan and involved significant intelligence operations to mislead the Germans as to their location. The Germans were spread thin defending a coastline longer than Taiwan's. It involved 156,000 allied troops. Even with a successful landing, it took six weeks to break out of the beach head and start pushing into France. Six weeks to build up forces in order to push out. How long will it take China to build up forces to push out of its beach head?

Geographer said:

I will first respond to jackliu's argument that Americans are idiots who do what they told by the government and media.

Even if this characterization of Americans were true, it more likely that the United States will intervene! Since the end of the Cold War, the American government has generally been more interventionist than the general public. President Bush I got involved in Somalia in 1992 overruling the deep skepticism of humanitarian missions in the Republican party, military establishment, and general public. When 18 soldiers died in the Battle of Mogadishu, the U.S. was ready to get out as fast as possible because it never really wanted to be there in the first place. President Clinton never had strong public support for the Bosnian and Kosovo Wars, or even support from the militaristic Republican Party, yet he pushed the wars ahead regardless. Opinion polls on the Iraq War and Afghanistan war since ~2006 show majorities want those wars to end as soon as possible, yet the U.S. government left/is leaving those wars very slowly. The U.s. defense and political establishment is more favorable to military adventures than the general public. Thus, if jackliu's argument that Americans are "sheeple" who do what their told by the government and media is true, that makes American intervention into a Taiwan conflict more likely!

Click to expand...

Funny, you listed all the wars US have fought... tell me something, do you notice something in common?? Well they are all small nations that can offer no real resistances whatsoever, Somalia lol, Bosnian, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam etc... I serious hope you can see the difference between those nations whom don't have any air force, navy, satellite, or even control their own air space. This argument if your just prove my point even more. US pull out of Somalie because of few death, the only reason US stuck in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam is because they have no choice, they are already involved, they are stuck there until they can bleed no more and suffer to much backlash from the public. So in the end, they all pull out and leaving a very destabilized situation which in the end, they can't extract any long term benefit from the invaded nations. Now, compare those small nation's ability with what China can do, and compare how much causality that China can inflict on US military, do you really think US will get involved? All of those argument that you pointed out support my case, however if you can list an example of US fishing another nation just as capable as they are, let's say... Soviet Union, then yeah, US have the will to fight China, a nation on par with them, you know why they didn't fought with Soviets? Because they didn't want WW3, the exact some reason they will not attack China when China takes back TW, the Island which 99% of nation on earth recognize as part of China, and TW serves no direct threat to the national security of America whatsoever.

My point is that US is not stupid, they will either get involved or not get involved at all. China can inflict enough pain to US that they will not get involved because of these circumstances.
1. Too much risk, causality. Yes, if US and China go all out in conventional battle, of course US will win, but US willing to suffer the cost?
2. Not worth it, TW is on the other side of earth, it serves as no strategic interest to US, it servers as no direct threat to US national security.
3. Not enough support for war. There will not be enough justification for US attacking China for TW. 99% of American can't even find TW on the map without using google map, TW has been recognize as part of china by almost all nation on earth, that means when war comes, China will veto any resolution in UN, China also have many friend that can support China's position. US will be going alone if they do.
4. Economic interests, it is funny you totally ignore this point in your reply, where this is actually one of my main argument, despite the trade deflects, US corporatism is actually benefiting FAR more than what the Chinese gains, they are the ones will suffer the most when war starts, they controls the politician, they will not lobby for war. Oh and there are other things China can do to damage US, they can dump 2 trillion treasure bonds over night, to crash the US economy.
5. Nuclear Apocalypse. Oh yeah, end of the world, war between 2 nation both have ICBM, which can kill billions within 20 minutes of time with just a push of a button, plunge the entire world into a nuclear winter. When war escalated, no one can predict how far it will go. Actually this reason alone, is enough for US to not get involved.

Tell me, what is the motivation for US wanting to get involved? Please go list them 1 by 1 and let's go examine them.

Next, jackliu argues that even if the U.S. does intervene, as soon as China's military smacks the USN around the Americans will go home.

Even the most optimistic Chinese generals would not dare risk a prediction of sinking up to three US CVBGs. All the analysis I've read is how much brain energy and weapons massing they are doing to attempt to take out just one. But let's assume there is a Chinese military miracle and they sink three CVBGs. What will the U.S. do?

If the war is still going on, the U.S. will find ways to "get back at" at the Chinese, make them feel some pain. Maybe the navy backs off, but the air force bombs whatever it can where ever it can. The USAF trained for decades to penetrate Soviet air defenses and there are ways into China as well. Maybe not directly over the Taiwan Strait, but from Korea into Manchuria an from India into southwestern China. What about Chinese merchant ships around the world? By the way, the United States would still have eight aircraft carriers to send against China.

If China launches a war against Taiwan, they should know with reasonable certainty that the U.S. will not get involved, or if the U.S. gets involved that China will win the war before the U.S. can rush more than one CVBG into the region.

Click to expand...

LOL, again you seems to miss the point, I said WILL US intervene IF they know their carrier is going to be sink? NOT what will US do after their carrier has been sink. Sinking carrier is one of the deterrence that US will not intervene. NOT the other way around.

Where are you getting these numbers? Can you explain how China would be able to land 30,000 troops so quickly and as a surprise? They only have three 071 LPDs which each carry 500-600 marines. China would needs dozens of ships ferrying troops back and forth for several days, like a reverse Battle of Dunkirk. And half a million in a few days or a week? China doesn't have the ships to do that, and even if they did they have never practiced such a large operation. Plus the ships and their landing troops would be vulnerable to all manner of Taiwanese defenses like naval mines, submarines, artillery, land mines, underwater obstacles, anti-ship missiles, and long-range artillery.

The last time an amphibious assault of the scale you're talking about--and the scale China would need to win--was in 1944 at Normandy. It took over a year to plan and involved significant intelligence operations to mislead the Germans as to their location. The Germans were spread thin defending a coastline longer than Taiwan's. It involved 156,000 allied troops. Even with a successful landing, it took six weeks to break out of the beach head and start pushing into France. Six weeks to build up forces in order to push out. How long will it take China to build up forces to push out of its beach head?

Click to expand...

Where I am getting these numbers? I am getting these number from 10 year from now, if China have made the decision to use militairy force, do you think they are not going to expand thier force? Do you really think they are just going to be satifed with what they have right now?

Oh and, there are more platform than 071, you do know China have dozens of large landing ship such as Type 072 right? And also airborne troops that can drop paratroopers right?

Do you really think China is going to be concerned by causality? They will run out of ammo before they run out of man. They have far more tolerances for pain than Western military (also include TW)